I can't comment on the lens in question, nor the samples posted here-- I looked only briefly.

Let's say the lens is totally out of spec. Lack of due diligence on the buyer's part, perhaps sneakiness on the seller's part (but, honestly, how can we know this?).

The bottom line is that 2 months is just way, way too long to raise an issue like this. And I don't see how Paul can say for certain that the seller wouldn't have refunded the lens after two days if Paul had seen the issue and raised the issue then.

It is quite possible the seller never even noticed the issue. And then Paul didn't notice either until so long after the sale. Of course, it's also possible the lens was bumped, or moved out of spec via wear and tear that crossed some threshold during the 2 months while it was in Paul's ownership. If I was the seller of a lens I thought to be just fine, and then the buyer got in touch with me 2 months after the sale about something like this-- I'd be suspicious the buyer wasn't trying to have one over on me.

I totally sympathise with your situation Paul. And I'd hate to spend $1500 on a lens that really seems out of spec. But I also tend to think it's in somewhat poor form to have started this thread-- and it's ultimately only making you look a little unreasonable as a buyer (after all, you bought it two months ago, then wen't public about it so late and in an anonymous sort of way you're tarnishing the character of the seller). What if the seller came on here and said, "Yeah, well, it was perfect when I sold it to Paul-- I think he bumped it."

justruss wrote:
...I totally sympathise with your situation Paul. And I'd hate to spend $1500 on a lens that really seems out of spec. But I also tend to think it's in somewhat poor form to have started this thread-- and it's ultimately only making you look a little unreasonable as a buyer (after all, you bought it two months ago, then wen't public about it so late and in an anonymous sort of way you're tarnishing the character of the seller). What if the seller came on here and said, "Yeah, well, it was perfect when I sold it to Paul-- I think he bumped it."...Show more →

I have been watching the thread from a distance - as I HAVE a life and moved on.

What has intrigued me most about this thread is the number of responses that have been totally unrelated to the original issue, and the number that have not paid attention to the things I have said in earlier responses. People are still conjecturing about aspects of my situation that have already been clarified.

If any of you wish to disbelieve me that is fine. There is nothing I can do about that anymore than I can motivate a dishonest seller to show integrity. He knows what he did and his private messages have made that clear. To any one who would question if the lens had been damaged after receipt, I can show an image that the seller has published that proves the problem existed when he had it. Must i do that as well to convince some of you? Or publish the messages between us?

When I originally asked people to look at the images from the lens, on this board and other boards, I was asking responders to clarify to the seller what I I saw in the lens -- no matter how late I discovered it. I purposely didn't tell everyone that I noticed it too late because I didn't want exactly what occurred in this thread to cloud the issue over whether the lens was right or wrong. It's interesting that of the three forums where a question was asked, this was the only one where commenters strayed from the original question.

The response has been overwhelming that the lens is seriously flawed. It simply isn't balanced across the frame from the low 20s to 35mm so the left side can't be made sharp - even stopped down. It can be seen in all of my images if you look at them large enough - even the marsh image. That doesn't mean that I've disputed the fact that the lens is visually like new. It is, and that was naturally advertised and celebrated in the purchase. Yet, the lens is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As I said some time ago, it has been interesting that the seller - who frequents this board, has watched this thread, and has sold on the board many times - has not once joined the discussion to defend himself, or the lens. He has not provided proof in anyway that I am wrong. He's probably very pleased that many have turned this into an issue about me rather than the lens.

If you return to the beginning and read my first posts, you will see that my only desire was to have the flaw in this lens pointed out to the seller - who has equally denied it exists and claimed that it's perfectly within specs - then has told me I was just having buyer's remorse to insult my inelligence. There was no indication of blame, or who the seller was. Nor was there any effort on my part to bias opinions about what was right or wrong with the lens. This discussion was never meant to be about me and the seller. But it WAS meant to be about a $1425 lens that none of you could be happy with. To pretend otherwise is just idiocy or malice.

warpedwoof wrote:
What has intrigued me most about this thread is the number of responses that have been totally unrelated to the original issue, and the number that have not paid attention to the things I have said in earlier responses.

Paul -- My first impression was that the lens didn't look too bad for a UWA zoom. Well within expectations I'd have for a lens of this type. Maybe not stellar, and it certainly wouldn't be my choice for architecture or landscape -- the lens design, not this sample.

If it were my choice, I wouldn't be looking to Sony cameras to do "professional" work. They lack the features and product depth to support wide ranging pro assignments. That's me, and my approach. I'm sure you can make things work for you, but when you look to a critical UWA or TS-E lens, you are pretty out of luck. It seems you have unrealistically elevated expectations for the Sony product, and especially this lens.

In short, I don't think you were duped by the seller. The lens seems within the expectations an experienced buyer would encounter. Sell it if you don't like it, and move on. That's what a pro would do.

I wrote that last response before completing the thread to this point, so I'd like to add a little more.

Paul -- You are an awful buyer.

I buy (and sell) a lot of items here and on ebay. I know very well how to hedge my bets and take chances. Mostly this has paid off very well for me some really great deals and great associations with buyers and sellers.

First point -- within hours of the delivery of the item to my house, I have tested it, and usually in multiple scenarios (multiple bodies, or multiple lenses on body). Carsten teases me about how much I shoot my backyard, and the inside of my house! I know immediately if there is a problem or not. If I find a problem, I contact the seller. A solution is worked out, somewhere between sending the item back for refund, or occasionally me undertaking repair at my own time/expense and simply notifying the seller of the matter. I never, ever, let a piece of equipment go waiting to test. I would never, ever have an expectation of recourse if I didn't contact the seller within a week to notify of a problem. Your failure is unconscionable.

To give you an idea: I bought a 1D3 and 1Ds3 in recent months from reputable buyers here. Both needed AF repair that was undetected by the previous owners. I sent them to Canon (being CPS member) and got them taken care of myself, and now have beautifully operating units. (In both cases, I was using in One Shot, the previous owners were using AI Servo, which worked fine!). I had gotten a great deal on both, so had goodwill toward the sellers already! No harm, no foul, no complaint of ethics. Another: I just got a used 17 TS-E lens on eBay that wouldn't focus, having suffered a bang by UPS. I contacted seller and arranged to send in for repair myself, carrying the repair charges until the seller repaid me (as agreed). Again -- I knew within an hour of delivery that there was a problem (actually I photographed the damaged box before opening), took care of the matter, and kept in good contact with the seller. I had gotten a great deal on the lens too.

On quick examination, your photos look "okay". Not great, but not glaringly bad. Since you didn't do your due diligence, you should repair (at your own expense, or try twisting Sony's arm) before you sell the lens, or you might reconsider keeping it if suits your needs after repair. Stop the revenge ploy against the seller and suck it up. Sorry for the inconvenience and the loss, but that happens sometimes, especially with used gear.

Everybody -- No, I'm not the seller! And I don't know who it is either.

It possible it was that way from the day Sony made it. But lenses also become decentered over their usable lifetime from drops or shocks. Shipping can do this (despite years of packing experience our rate is one of every 400 shipments). It also happens when lenses are dropped.

If I was a legitimate seller and someone approached me about this my first thought would be 'you dropped the lens, now it's out of spec, and you want me to eat the repair'. I understand Warpedwoof didn't use the lens for two months, but the seller may not believe that.

I see both sides of this. It all could have been prevented, if as already mentioned, the seller had posted images or the buyer had tested in a timely manner.

To settle this once and for all. The lens was decentered before I received it. I've linked an image from the former owner's set on the Zeissimages.com forum. If you zoom the image you can readily see the left side is soft at 30mm and f7.1 while the right side is much sharper by comparison. And this is a relatively small image.

Now I'm sure I'll hear from someone that the blur was caused by a smudge on the lens.

That's all I care about. The seller has bought and sold many lenses through the years where he's analyzed and demonstrated their capabilities in threads on this forum. I assure you he knew about the decentering. He may have never acknowledged it in the threads, or in his sale listing of the lens, but he knew about it.

Roger, you can read through the entire thread to see that I was pushed to explain the circumstances -- or else no one was going to take me seriously. I'm not stupid. I know that many of the responders in this thread already knew who the seller was. It's not hard to find out.

My sole desire was to prove to the seller that I was not the only one who say the decentering. That's why I brought the issue up in the same way on two other forums. He flat-out denied it existed in his pms to me with an attitude that I could go screw myself. And yet he contradicted himself in subsequent pms when he used the excuse that he was on a fixed income and couldn't afford to compensate me. This from a man who had just returned from a vacation and buys Zeiss lenses as a matter of habit. Hey, guess what folks, I'm poor too, and my investment in this lens was meant to further my ability to make something of a living from my images.

I have acknowledged above that I was remiss in not catching the fault sooner. I always inspect the capabilities of the used lenses I receive, but missed this one because I took it for granted this seller was on the up and up, and also used it solely at night at 16-20mm and f2.8-5.6 because I was interested in the lens for night shooting of architecture and cityscapes. You know night-shooting doesn't show a lenses flaws like daylight.

So how many times must I repeat myself? Enough already. I said a while ago I wasn't interested in pursuing this further. Believe me or don't believe me. Consider him the harmed party if you must. You've received a much larger mea culpa from me than I will ever receive from the seller. But let the thread die.

Paul -- Regardless of any other issues or personal distress, you admit to being remiss in not testing the lens when you received it. Later, you found the imaging was not up to your standards.

You have several obvious choices based on those facts:

1) Keep the lens and use as-is
2) Sell the lens as-is, probably at a slight loss
3) Repair the lens and either keep or sell

I don't see that starting multiple threads in forums to get revenge on a seller you feel cheated you is a viable option. You are simply admitting that you:

A) Jumped the gun on a pricey used lens that doesn't come up for sale very often
B) Failed to do a proper inspection of the lens in a timely fashion after it arrived
C) Failed to contact the seller in a timely manner to resolve any problem found
D) Started multiple poison pen revenge threads to retaliate against the seller who would not refund your purchase after months gone by

How you found sympathetic ears (eyes!) on these other forums, I have no idea.

Is a badly decentered lens up to your standard? And what if the seller has implied that he wouldn't have been willing to compensate me right from the start because he argued the lens was fine, and tried to show me lens reviews as his validation that it was as I should expect. Wouldn't you be inclined to show him evidence that you are not the only person who feels the lens is badly flawed?

It's an issue of right and wrong. All the other nonsense is an attempt to avoid that original issue, whether I deserve compensation or not.

This is getting long and not a thread that will make you (warpedwoof) happy. Here is my opinion just to add to it all:

As a seller I take care telling presumptive buyers what they will get. A recent ad, selling my micro four thirds gear is here and the link to more text and images about the items is still working.

The stuff is sold, the buyer is happy and I'm happy; a good deal is a deal both involved feel good about. I'm sometimes painfully honest about what I sell and I lose a few [currency of choice] from time to time. One doesn't need to be that but that's me.

Let's say I miss something. Then I have told the seller to let me know within a week and that the stuff can be sent back if it is in the same condition as when I shipped it. I'll then return the money. (This has never been necessary though.)

I would dismiss anyone taking contact after 2 months complaining about something. By then the money would be used for something else and I'm not interested in running a 2 months free rental service.

What is there to learn? Involved parties need to communicate before the money and the gear is shipped. Not doing so may lead to a situation like yours. Ask what you need to know before paying, or tell the buyer what he needs to know before shipping.

Threads like this one can be seen from time to time. I have never seen one bringing happiness to the world.

warpedwoof wrote:This is an amazing lens - great color and is very sharp. They don't often come up for sale so don't miss this one! As one pro photographer said to me - "this lens is my Money Maker".

Anyone else wish to nitpick?

Well, he did not state WHERE it is very sharp. Yes, it sounds flippant but, as a buyer, that's seriously the kind of thing I think about when someone states a lens is very sharp. The burden really is upon the buyer to scrutinize any purchase - and any question about a listing - in a timely manner. Even Ebay/ Paypal "only" allow 45 days from the time of payment for any kind of dispute to be brought (an overly generous amount of time imo).

Sorry, Paul, you are just impossible. I hope FM sellers have all had a chance to take note of your handle and avatar.

You didn't respond to any of my points about how you handled your end of the purchase, but instead go right back into an attack on the seller. You should have let him know this is how you felt in the first couple days after the lens arrived, not using it happily for a few months, then finding things you don't like about it.

Totally beside the original point, Tariq. I was going to let the thread go, but apparently a few of you aren't satisfied.

So from now on, any additional comment will introduce a new piece of evidence that the seller knew what he was doing and had no intention of accepting a return on the lens or compensating me from the time of the sale.

In fact I did respond to your points, Gunzorro. A long time ago. It is you who keep dragging them up under the pretense of saying something new. It is also apparent that you refuse to see the evidence and weigh it against your obvious predilection to support the seller. Or else you would have left the thread a long time ago.

Satisfied? It really does not matter to me at all one way or the other. I'm just addressing the new information you introduced about the listing and answering your call for "nitpicking". Pretty much everyone on here is a buyer and a seller and you can bet we are all diligent nitpickers that do everything possible to protect a purchase or sale transaction.

I'm really not sure what your point is beyond getting confirmation that the lens is de-centered. That was the only thing you wanted to know with the thread right? By continuing to add information about the seller, the listing, the time that went by and so on, it begins to read like sour grapes. I was just giving advice (worth what you paid for it) about how to possibly avoid future issues with a purchase.